Coldmountains said… @Krefter All Z93 samples so far are genetically really western shifted compared to Yamnaya. Sintashta for example was more western shifted than Erzya, Mordvins and other europid Uralics. That makes an Asian origin of Z93 unlikely and rather points to a West-East migration of Z93/Z94 starting from a place where they could take a lot of EEF wifes. The Poltavka R1a guy , who is also the oldest of the Poltavka samples, is genetically close to Srubnaya/Sintashta so he is probably representing an early intrusion of Z93 folks into Yamnaya/Poltavka and has the same origin like Sintashta/Srubnaya. October 11, 2015 at 3:07 PM

Davidski said… R1a-Z93/Z94 could not have existed among the native populations of both Eastern Europe and South Asia 2500-2000 BC. It’s obviously from Europe and represents European admixture in South Asia. October 11, 2015 at 10:52 PM

Coldmountains said… @Nirjhar I had a lot of that discussions elsewhere and know that you and others would still claim a Z93 origin in Central Asia/South Asia even if we would find the grave of the Z93 patriarch in Europe. Some basal R1a or R1a similar to Xiahoe will maybe be found in Pre-Andronovo South Central Asia but Z93 surely not. Z94 in South Asia is not even really diverse and R1a even less (only Z93 almost no Z93-). Rig vedic Indo-Aryans were pastoralist warlike semi-nomadic Indo-Europeans showing a lot of parallels to other Indo-Europeans. They praised Indra as destroyer of forts and Vedic rituals show exact parallels with Sintashta or Potapovka. There is significant NE European admixture among Indo-Aryans and Jatts and even some Brahmins have in some cases more NE European DNA than Pashtuns or Tajiks. But both are mainly L657 and Z2124 is just carried by a minority among them so you need to explain how they got it as mainly L657 carriers. October 11, 2015 at 11:12 PM

Coldmountains said… @Nirjhar Oldest basal R1a is actually found today among few ethnic Poles and Russians. Z93* was not found in South Asia yet and just Z94* among one sample from Punjab. I previously also mentioned that Uralic languages have Proto-Indic loanwords certainly not of Iranian origin. But Scythians or Saka were Iranian-speaking and we don’t know of any historical migration or presence of Indo-Aryans close to Uralics so in pre-historical times and prior to Scythians Proto-Indic languages were spoken not far away from Proto-Uralic languages. That is actually not really surprising because we knew already before than Indo-Aryans were the first Indo-Iranians which moved eastwards. BMAC is not relevant for the origin if Z94 and they were just Georgian-like teak farmers with a bit more ANE so they can be excluded as source for the EEF ancestry among Sintashta/Potapovka/Srubnaya. Yamnayas Near Eastern ancestry was more related to BMAC than that of Sintashta. October 11, 2015 at 11:33 PM

Nirjhar007 said… R1a-Z93/Z94 could not have existed among the native populations of both Eastern Europe and South Asia 2500-2000 BC. Is this something new from you?, no its not, so i’m not going to answer, October 12, 2015 at 5:04 AM

Coldmountains said… @Nirjhar You were wrong and admit that. I was also wrong about other things in the past and I admit that. You are probably not even Z94 because someone carrying it would not argue such kind of things and would have no problem accepting a European origin of it. The only question about L657 or Z94 we need to answer now is where exactly they were born in Europe/North Eurasia. Explain the high NE Euro admixture among L657 Jatts for example and how Indo-Iranians speak Indo-European languages if they are originally not from Eastern Europe? Sooner or later we will get ancient DNA from Pre-IE Asia and no Z93/Z94 will be found there just like no R1b-L51 was found in Neolithic West Europe. If Sintashta/Srubnaya/Potapovka picked Z93 from BMAc than tell me how they show no genetic links to Central or South Asia and were genetically just the same like Lithuanians? October 12, 2015 at 5:43 AM

Davidski said… What they’re saying there is that Z93 might be from somewhere like western Yamnaya, rather than Central Europe. I actually talked over e-mail to one of the authors about this. But again, it’s probably not worded too well. October 17, 2015 at 12:32 AM

CroMagnon said… I doubt that there’s direct descent from corded ware groups. There has been way too much flux between CWC and Piast Poland for that. Rather, modern Poles descend, for the most part, from several groups, some of which are indeed ancestral to CWC, but perhaps not those very same ones from bronze age Wielkopolska. August 15, 2015 at 4:05 PM

Krefter said… What about the Slavic migrations? Did the Slavs come from east of Poland? August 15, 2015 at 5:09 PM

Davidski said… I doubt it.

M458 is the Slavic marker and it peaks in Western Slavs, including Czechs and Slovaks, who don’t have much in common with East Slavs, at least relative to their western neighbors like Germans and Austrians. August 15, 2015 at 5:40 PM

Dmytro said… Where, in your opinion, do the other Slavic markers, viz., M558 and CTS10228 stand? August 16, 2015 at 5:16 AM

Davidski said… M558 might be in large part a Baltic marker. The early Slavs expanded over a huge stretch of Baltic-speaking territory, so a lot of Slavs today, especially East Slavs, carry Baltic lineages.

CTS10228 probably derives from southern Poland, but its launching pad with the Slavic expansions to the Balkans was probably further east. August 16, 2015 at 5:22 AM

CroMagnon said… M458 is not „the” slavic marker. It’s a marker which expanded (or subgroups within) c. 500 AD. Afaik, most R1a in the Balkans is from Z280 August 16, 2015 at 2:59 PM

Davidski said… Well I doubt the Proto-Slavs rushed for the Balkans as soon as they appeared.

Don’t conflate the birth of a people with their first major expansions. August 16, 2015 at 4:54 PM

batman said… „Slavic” is a language, developing during late Roman times, as a ‚lingua franca’ of the trading communities around the Black Sea.

Thus there were never a „slavonic dna” – but rather a linguistic communion that developed the *slavonic-speaking’ peoples. Mist of them were formerly prt of the Bulgars, who used to share language with the Hungarians and the Venedae, aka Sarmatian/Scytian.

The spread of the slavonic language goes hand in hand with the spread of the Eastern Roman Empire to the north. Thus it was Method and Cyril who got the task to form a cyrilian writing-system, to cover the language that had developed around the northern areas of the Black Sea.

Since Justitian it kept conquering new grounds up north – especially along the trade-routes/waterways towards the Balkans and the Baltic Ocean, where the North European markets were.

Since the russians (also) submitted to the trade-union of Konstantiopel – and thus converted to the Greek church – the slavonic languages could spread all along the northern areas too, from the vendic Vistula (slavonic: Wizla) to the uralian Venedae/Vänejä/Russians.

The spread of the Slavonic languages – as well as the Greek church – are clearly a case of cultural diffusion, NOT demic. August 17, 2015 at 4:01 AM

Davidski said… That’s ridiculous. August 17, 2015 at 5:33 AM

batman said… Aha.

Is there any line of reason, bassed on facts rather than assumptions – to explain such a blunt conclusion? August 17, 2015 at 11:25 AM

batman said… „If some prospective descendants of the Eulau haplotype carries lived until today, theirs actual haplotype must have a difference of GD=2 – 4, for the regularities discovered until this time say that each haplotype begins to mutate in a certain number of generation. It means that people today being with such difference from the Eulau haplotype can deem themselves as prospective descendants or close relatives of the people burried in Eulau 4 600 years ago.”

„Haplotypes close to the Eulau haplotype up to a genetic distance 4 originate only from Norway, Great Britain, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia. Not untill the GD=5 the other European countries do occur.”

„This discovery represents another argument against the statement that each R1a haplogroup carrier living today in our country is of so-called Slavic origin. It is already the second support of the fact that R1a haplogroup has occured in middle Europe since the Neolith. It is likely that the people with haplotypes close to those from Eulau were the first, or the ones of them, who brought the R1a haplogroup to middle Europe.”

„The fact that the recent haplotypes closest to the one from Eulau can be found in Norway, Great Britain, Czech Republic and Slovakia can point to a probable origin of R1a amongst Celts and Germans.”

So the question remians – what haplotype is supposed to signify a „slavic” patriliniality (‚tribe’). August 19, 2015 at 11:42 AM

Davidski said… Low resolution STR haplotypes won’t tell you much about R1a lineages, because 99% of the R1a in the world comes from a massive and rapid expansion and founder effect from Eneolithic Eastern Europe. The people expanding were early Indo-Europeans and ancestors of the Corded Ware.

That’s why using a few STR markers a Norwegian R1a can look a lot closer to an Indian R1a than to another Norwegian R1a.

Slavic R1a lineages are just a subset of this massive Corded Ware R1a expansion. August 19, 2015 at 2:22 PM

Etymology
From the Proto-Indo-European *h₂eḱs-. Cognate with the Latin axis.

Pronunciation
IPA: /ákʰ.sɔːn/ → /ˈax.son/ → /ˈak.son/

Noun
ἄξων • ‎(áxōn) m ‎(genitive ἄξονος); third declension
an axle
(geometry) an axis of a solid
of a cone
of a conic section
of a cylinder
the axis of the celestial sphere
(figuratively) a course or path of action
(anatomy) C2, the axis (the second cervical vertebra)

Verb
ἄγω • ‎(ágō)
I lead
I fetch, bring along (of people), take with
I lead away, arrest, carry off
I lead, guide, command
I draw out
I hold, celebrate, observe
I weigh
(middle voice) I take for myself
(…)

A four-wheeled cart for hauling loads.
A freight car on a railway.
A child’s riding toy, four-wheeled and pulled or steered by a long handle in the front.
(US, Australia, slang) A station wagon (or SUV).
(slang) A paddy wagon.
A truck, or lorry.

The original sense was of motion, which led to that of lifting, then to that of „measure the weight of.” The older sense of „lift, carry” survives in the nautical phrase weigh anchor. Figurative sense of „to consider, ponder” (in reference to words, etc.) is recorded from mid-14c. To weigh in in the literal sense is from 1868, originally of jockeys; figurative meaning „bring one’s influence to bear” is from 1909.

http://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/5987
(…)
Cer. 438-40
In the double specification, propolos and opaōn, propolos reinforces and limits the meaning of opaōn. The root of propolos is * k w ol -, the o-grade of *k w el- pelomai. [8] The original sense of the root was ‘to turn’, as reflected in polos ‘an axis’. The range of meanings of pelomai reveals how this original meaning became ‘to be’, ‘to turn out to be, come to be, come into being, and to be’. The basis of propolos is then ‘to be’, and the sense of opaōn as a companion who is almost identical to the hero emphasizes the fidelity expressed by propolos
(…)

Noun
रथ • ‎(rátha) m
chariot, car, especially a two-wheeled war-chariot (lighter and swifter than the अनस् ‎(anas)), any vehicle or equipage or carriage (applied also to the vehicles of the gods), waggon, cart

Witold Manczak: criticism of PIE laryngeals
It is true that the Laryngeal Theory of Proto-Indo-European is widely accepted nowadays, but with different degrees of ‚faith’. Many IE linguists have expressed their doubts about some aspects of the theory and in many cases (notably Oswald Szemerényi) only accepted a weak version, with just one laryngeal sound. But of course, there are other linguists who seem to be more enthusiastic about their h1’s, h2’s and h3’s, as we saw in this post, with nice examples like the reconstructed word for ‚two PIE widows’ (nom. dual). In a book by Mallory and Adams (2006), I have found a really beautiful set of laryngeals. There are nine of them (see picture below), and it’s not just the normal h’s with numbers, but also with little letters (x and a) and even some mysterious combinations of numbers:

Does it make sense to invent a whole set of imaginary phonemes just for the sake of reconstruction? Is it justified? There are some linguists who have noticed some of the important inconsistencies in PIE Laryngeal Theory, and in some cases are completely against it. It’s not easy to find their articles, as they are generally ignored by the IE linguistics establishment. And don’t try to find much about them in Wikipedia or other Internet sources, they are just neglected. One of these authors is the eminent Polish linguist Witold Manczak, who has written a series of articles with strong criticism, actually a refutation, of the Laryngeal Theory. I have recently read one of these articles (Manczak, 2006), which has a significant title: Invraisemblance de la théorie des laryngales (=The Unlikelihood of the Laryngeal Theory). As we can see in the initial remarks, the author is quite aware of the difficulties of trying to raise a critical voice in IE studies (p. 25): „Nos articles ayant passés sous silence, il nous est venu à l’esprit de présenter nos arguments dans une revue beaucoup plus connu”.

And indeed, he has some arguments. First, he starts by reviewing the process that led to the invention of the theory. Let’s remember it briefly: by the end of the 19th c. the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure proposed the idea that PIE had only one vowel (/e/) and a series of ‚coefficients sonantiques’ that could influence this vowel. Later on, the Danish linguist Hermann Möller introduced the concept of IE laryngeals, which he saw as arising from the supposed kinship between IE and Afro-Asiatic. The final impulse for the Laryngeal Theory came with the discovery oh Hittite, an IE language which showed a ‚laryngeal’ sound. In 1927, the Polish linguist Jerzy Kurylowicz combined Saussure’s ‚coefficients sonantiques’ with the evidence from Hittite to produce the first version of the Laryngeal Theory.

According to Mańczak, the first problem is that Saussure’s proposal is untenable, for various important reasons, among them the absurdity of proposing a language with just one vowel (/e/), when in fact the most common pattern in the world’s languages is, at least /i a u/. (p. 26): „l’explication de ces alternances à l’aide des coefficients sonantiques est fausse. (…) les coefficients sonantiques n’ont existé que dans l’imagination de Saussure”. This would be enough to invalidate the whole edifice of PIE laryngeals, which was based on Saussure’s assumptions. But then Manczak goes on to analyse some further details of the theory, for example the fact that there are so many different versions of the set of laryngeals: (p. 29) „les laryngales n’existent que dans l’imagination de certains linguistes, la théorie des laryngales est un domaine où tout est permis, où rien ne freine la fantasie des chercheurs, où la notion de rigueur scientifique est inconnue”. He quotes several authors who have expressed similar opinions, e.g . Hiersche (1964: 11): „die Laryngale sind in der Lage, bainahe jede Lautveränderung hervorzurufen oder selbst zu erfahren, was in der allgemeine Phonetik nicht seinesgleichen hat”.The laryngeals were, and still are, the perfect solution to solve any possible PIE reconstruction mystery that could not be solved by other means, even if it’s necessary to propose quite abnormal things, like consonants turning into vowels and other unlikely events.

In the final part of the article, Manczak asks himself why it is that the Laryngeal Theory has been so successful among linguists. According to him, there is a general lack of validity criteria in historical linguistics. (p. 31): „le terme „critères de verité” n’est jamais employé par les linguistes, bien que les linguistes soient unanimes pour dire que la linguistique est une science”. The important thing is the ‚authority’ behind the theory, not the validity of the theory itself. (p. 32): „Comme les linguistes croient en l’infaillibilité des autorités, ils détestent ceux qui osent critiquer les autorités et adorent ceux qui approuvent ou développent les idées des autorités”.

I find Manczak’s proposals quite interesting, and I think anyone doing research in the field of IE studies should take them into account, instead of assuming the Laryngeal Theory as indisputable truth.

German Dziebel said…
Hello and thank you for an interesting blog. I agree that there are some problems with the way Indo-Europeanists treat „laryngeals” and with the way they treat novel ideas and approaches. Over the past 10 years, I’ve been involved in developing new approaches to etymologizing IE kinship terms by combining anthropological and comparativist methodologies. This project naturally took me into PIE phonology. What I realized is that comparativist method in linguistics is constrained by ad hoc definitions of cognate sets. Words get grouped on the basis of „similarity” in sound and meaning. But what if overtime words change both formally and semantically? Comparativist method has no way to handle this complex situation.

As a result of re-comparing IE cognate sets I came across quite a few possible cases in which „laryngeals” correspond to… palatalized velars in satem languages (specifically, H2) and labiovelars in centum languages (specifically, H3). Exactly like „laryngeals” palatalized velars and labiovelars are not attested in IE languages.

So, my overall impression is that "laryngeals" is an artifact of comparativist methodology that errs by assuming that "similarity" will ensure the correct placement of cognates into cognate sets from which sound laws are eventually derived.

The great importance of Hittite for the laryngeal theory is that it contains forms in which distinct reflexes of the laryngeals are recorded. These are found where we should expect to find them in accordance with theoretical analysis of IE phonological sequences and form categories.

Saussure had assumed earlier laryngeals from the PIE patterns given below; Hittite forms which have been cited in support of his assumptions are listed after these.

A. Long vowels that had not arisen in ablaut he assumed were due to lengthening of short vowels upon loss of laryngeals, thus stā- < /steA-/. (Mém. 135.)

Hittite preserves some of the uncontracted forms, in which the laryngeal had not yet been lost. Corresponding to long a in Latin pāscō is -aḫ- in Hittite pa-aḫ-ša-an-zi ‘protects’; compare also Gothic mēl ‘time’, Hittite me-e-ḫu-e-ni ‘time’.

B. The long resonants, ī ū ṝ ḹ ṃ̄ ṇ̄, which Saussure posited, developed according to him from short resonants with loss of laryngeals.

We find the reflex of a laryngeal in Hittite pal-ḫi-i-iš ‘broad’, compare Latin plānus ‘flat’.

C. Such long resonants are found in the zero grade forms made from Skt. seṭ-roots (Mém. 248ff.), e.g. bhávi-tum ‘be’, bhū-tá; vámi-ti, van-tá; váni-tā, vā-tá. On the basis of such forms Saussure assumed that seṭ-roots developed from PIE roots which ended in sonants, that is, laryngeals; Skt. bhavi- would point to PIE /bhewX-/, vami- to /wemX-/, vani- to /wenX-/.

After the Hittite cognates were found, the postulations of Saussure and Möller were raised to the status of explanations; for now, although the older forms were few, IE reconstructions could be supported with earlier forms rather than with phonological formulae or remote reconstructions.

3.4. The Hittite evidence in favor of the laryngeal theory

Even though Hittite has supplied the clinching evidence for the laryngeal theory, the Hittite evidence is not without difficulty, and almost disappointing as a support for the theory. Hendriksen has listed the Hittite words in which ḫ, ḫḫ gives evidence of laryngeal, (BHL 27-33) and their number is relatively small; I have added to his list the additional words cited in IHL. The combined list is given below in five groups.

Jesús Sanchis said…
You’re right, Arun. There’s a lot of wishful thinking in the idea that Hittite can support something as artificial as the set of supposed PIE laryngeals.

We know about Hittite from a series of inscriptions in Old Assyrian cuneiform. The Hittites adapted the script to their language but it is obvious that, on the whole, these signs are more suitable for a Semitic language than for an IE one. This is an additional difficulty in our understanding of Hittite and the other languages of ancient Anatolia.
14 October 2012 at 12:20

Ken Fawcett said…
I haven’t commented before but I really enjoy reading you blogs.

I generally do not dispute that all the so-called sub-branches of IE sprang from a common language, but find many problems with the PIE reconstructions. Many are jumping to defend laryngeals, but so far no one has attempted to offer an explanation for the /a/ less model. Currently there is only one language in the world that lacks an unrounded open vowel.

Languages are presumed to have been more complicated as one goes back further in history. PIE reconstruction has followed suit with the consonants, surely enough, but has reduced the number of vowels to two (generally). I don’t see any reason for this. It’s not like any documented „descendants” of PIE have an /a/ less vowel system, or is there one?
19 October 2012 at 11:23

Jesús Sanchis said…
Exactly, Ken, the absence of /a/ is one of the most strinking and absurd features of the traditional PIE model, together with the laryngeal set. There’s an interesting article by Xaverio Ballester (in Spanish) about this missing /a/. I don’t know if you’ve read it, but anyway, this is the link to the post where I duscssed this issue, with a llink to Ballester’s article:

Ken Fawcett said…
To me, if you do some complex calculations and you get an unlikely answer, you treat it as a miscalculation and redo the calculations. You don’t just invent a theory that justified the seemingly erroneous calculations.

Thanks for the link to the article. I have read parts where you have quoted Ballester in your blog. Although I have some elementary knowledge of Spanish that could probably get me by if I was lost in the streets of Madrid, that article is slightly beyond me… I will fight it with a dictionary sometime 🙂
23 October 2012 at 10:40

https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/41760
Title: System PIE : The Primary Phoneme Inventory and Sound Law System for Proto-Indo-European
Author: Pyysalo, Jouna
Contributor: University of Helsinki, Faculty of Arts, Department of World Cultures
Thesis level: Doctoral dissertation (monograph)
Belongs to series: Publications of the Institute for Asian and African Studies

Abstract: The Indo-European (IE) sound laws are the best known of all language families. Yet many laws remain incompletely formulated due to a failure in the interpretation of the Old Anatolian laryngeal. The postulation of multiple laryngeals (at least three in the mainstream laryngeal theory) has led to a detour in the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE).

A single laryngeal PIE *ḫ ≡ Ḫi. ḫ was already discovered by Ladislav Zgusta, however, and subsequently it was confirmed by Johann Tischler. The dissertation studies unexplored properties of PIE *ḫ and demonstrates that it had a voiceless (PIE *h) and a voiced (PIE *ɦ) variant with glottal fricative articulation. PIE *ḫ appears with PIE *a in diphonemic PIE *ḫa and *aḫ.

The solution to the laryngeal problem allows for a clarification of the relationship between PIE *h/ɦ and the rest of the phoneme inventory. This analysis results in the primary phoneme inventory for Proto-Indo-European consisting of PIE *a/ā? *e/ē *h/ɦ *i/y *k/g *l/L *m/M *n/N *o/ō *p/b *r/R *s/z *t/d *u/w.

The inventory is minimal: it cannot be reduced and it is sufficient to generate attested IE forms. Accordingly, the import of System PIE for Indo-European linguistics is comparable to mastery of the building blocks of DNA. In addition, the dissertation modernizes the IE sound laws in terms of PIE *h/ɦ. Due to the advanced stage of IE linguistics, no entirely new sound laws are presented, because the yet remaining problems of the traditional sound laws reflect the absence of the comparative interpretation of the Old Anatolian laryngeal.

The scientific framework is the comparative method of reconstruction, recognized as a branch of natural science already by August Schleicher. The dissertation contributes to the development of the field by explicating the method by means of predicate calculus, including a formulation of Schleicher s intuitive description of the decision method for IE etymology. As such, System PIE can be digitalized i.e. turned into a programming language that can generate IE data from reconstructions.

The most reliable etymological and standard dictionaries are used as the material. While these sources present the data and etymological suggestions, no full comparative conclusions have yet been drawn. As a contribution to this area of the field, the dissertation presents hundreds of new etymologies, which serve as examples of the Proto-Indo-European Lexicon, a digital etymological dictionary of IE languages that will be published at http://pielexicon.hum.helsinki.fi

Rights: This publication is copyrighted. You may download, display and print it for Your own personal use. Commercial use is prohibited.

Etymology

Originally meant „to enter, penetrate” with a semantic narrowing to „copulate”. The original meaning can be seen in Luwian [script needed] ‎(ipatarma-, “west”), [script needed]‎(iparwassa/i-, “western”) (< pre-form *ipa- ‎(“west, sunset”)), Tocharian A yow- ‎(“to enter, set (of sun)”). The semantic specialization was confined to the central and eastern parts of the IE speech community, and did not affect either Tocharian or Anatolian, and has left no trace in the West IE.

On April 29 at the CARTA website as part of the Ancient DNA and Human Evolution symposium:

Ancient European Population History

Speaker: Johannes Krause

Ancient DNA can reveal pre-historical events that are difficult to discern through the study of archaeological remains and modern genetic variation alone. Our research team analyzed more than 200 ancient human genomes spanning the last 10,000 years of Western Eurasian pre-history. We find direct evidence for two major genetic turnover events at the beginning and at the end of the Neolithic time period in Europe. Our data provide strong support of a major migration of early farmers spreading from Anatolia starting around 9000 years ago bringing agriculture and domestic animals to Europe. Following their arrival, early farmers genetically admix with indigenous Europeans in the course of the coming 3000 years. At the end of the Neolithic period, around 5000 years ago, we find the first genetic evidence for another major migration event of people from the pontic steppe, north of the black sea, into the heartland of Europe. The newcomers practice pastoralism, are highly mobile, due to the widespread use of horses, wheels and wagons and they may be responsible for the first spread of plague among human populations in Eurasia. We find that all modern European populations today are a genetic mixture of steppe pastoralist, early farmers and indigenous European hunter-gatherers in varying proportions. We furthermore find that due to genetic mixture and local biological adaptation there are major changes in human phenotypes such as eye color, skin color and the ability to digest milk sugar through the course of the last 10,000 years.

Nirjhar007 said…
almost sounds superficial .
April 6, 2016 at 4:32 AM

Davidski said…
I’m betting there will be ancient DNA evidence of the plague at Harappan sites.
April 6, 2016 at 4:43 AM

Krefter said…
„We find that all modern European populations today are a genetic mixture of steppe pastoralist, early farmers and indigenous European hunter-gatherers in varying proportions.”

Everything in the abstract is perfect except this. They’re ignoring Siberian, North African, and Near Eastern admixture in many Europeans. Migration from Anatolia 9,000yo and Pontic-Caspien Steppe in Bronze age 5,000yo are the most important events in shaping European genepool.
April 6, 2016 at 12:57 PM

rozenfag said…
The abstract sounds just like an abstract for Mathieson 2015(Genome-wide patterns of selection in 230 ancient Eurasians). I am afraid it will be just retelling of that paper.
April 6, 2016 at 1:19 PM

Davidski said…
Maybe, but it’s likely that Harvard and Max Planck have sequenced a shit load of ancient samples since the Mathieson et al paper, so he might hint at something new, like he did last year. Remember this?

The claim that the Proto-Indo-Europeans came from West Asia and largely belonged to Y-haplogroup J2 seems to be popular online nowadays. I won’t discuss here in detail the reasons why, but suffice to say it has a lot do with aggressive lobbying on several online forums and blogs by a few people of Southern European extraction, like Dienekes Pontikos.

It was always a shaky proposition, but difficult to debunk thoroughly. Until now.

Thanks to recent advances in both modern and ancient DNA research, we can now safely say that Y-haplogroup J2 was not involved in any rapid, large scale population expansions during the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age (LN/EBA), the generally accepted Proto-Indo-European time frame.
(…)

„In the plot above three lineages jump out at you. E1b, R1a, and R1b. The first is associated with the Bantu expansion, that occurred over the last 4,000 years. The second two are likely associated with Indo-Europeans in both Asia and Europe, respectively. The timescale is on the order of 4 to 5,000 years in the past. The association between culture and genes, or the genetic lineages of males, is rather clear, in these cases. In other instances the growth was more gradual. For example, the lineages likely associated with the first Neolithic pulses, J and G.”

„For instance, almost all IE language branches testify to a word designating ‘wool’. Since archaeological evidence suggests that wool sheep did not exist until the beginning of the fourth millennium BCE, the existence of the word in PIE would indicate that the disintegration of the proto-language could not have taken place before this date. Similarly, words for concepts such as ‘wheel’, ‘yoke’, ‘honey bee’ and ‘horse’ may be correlated directly with concrete, datable archaeological evidence.”

George Okromchedlishvili said…
Well, J2 association isn’t as comical as G2a fantasies that a small batch of Ossetia nationalists have apparently been parading (on Caucasians are notorious for nationalistic glorification of their „great” ancestors so it’s probably not wise to be too hard on these guys).
April 30, 2016 at 8:24 AM

andrew said…

I agree with the conclusion, but I also think that the understandable reason that people associated J2 with Indo-Europeans is that J2 was present in Anatolians and Greeks, each of whom were Indo-Europeanized ca. 4kya, and once those civilizations assimilated J2 men from the substrates that they conquered, both the Hittites and Greek speaking Greeks expanded to various places along the Northern Mediterranean coast and into the Levant, leave traces linked to Indo-European peoples in those places. I recall toying with the J2 as Indo-European marker for a couple years when the first Y-DNA hg papers starting coming out and never managing to make it fit. (A fair amount of Southern Mediterranean and Iberian J2 may be a legacy of historic era Islamic expansion arriving as a minor portion of an Arabian mix that is predominantly J1.)

The trouble is that J2 doesn’t generalize widely and consistently enough across the entire Indo-European geographic range to be associated with PIE, isn’t in the relevant ancient DNA, and seems to be already emerging and expanding in the Mesolithic and early Neolithic era.

An important unsolved question about J2 is when it, and its sister clade, J1 arrive in their West Asian highland and SW Asian lowland modern core territories. Given that G2 dominates EEF and is probably derived from an Anatolian EEF population, Y-DNA J may have arrived in Anatolia sometime after the first wave Neolithic that produced the LBK but before the Hittites. For example, a mixed J2/J1 population could have arrived with Eneolithic wave of highland farmer/herder/copper worker migrants from the Caucasus to Anatolia and the Zargos Mountains, with a herder population that was heavy in J1 due to random founder effects later migrating into the lowlands and becoming the founding population of modern Arabs.

I’ve long been deeply skeptical of the hypothesis that there is continuity between modern J1 populations of SW Asia and the Upper Paleolithic hunter-gatherers of SW Asia who eventually colonized the rest of Eurasia.
April 30, 2016 at 10:51 AM

The horse is related to the hart, apparently HG terminology. Of course, there is PIE *hekwos, shared with N. Caucasian, and possibly connected to Proto-Altaic *èk‘á ‎(“to move quickly, to rage”). Most likely also HG terminology, borrowed rather than invented by PIE, and not very „posh” as a term. For horses as status symbols and war animals, Germanic and Celtic went for the mare (originaly „stallion”, c.f. „marshal”), apparently a borrowing from Mongolic. The widespread Slavic Kherevec „Stallion” contains the Georgian male specifier Khary „bull” mounted on a root that appears related to Turkish beygir „horse”. Imports from Central Siberia, with some Caucasian mediation, as would be expected from the archeological record. But, even if borrowed, isn’t PIE *hekwos giving an
indication that PIE only broke up after they received the domesticated horse? Actually not. Such technical terms can spread more or less uniformly at any point in time, as, e.g., demonstrated by the Arabic alcohol.

Wool is etymologically related to the (spinning) wheel and as such rather EEF (EN) than pastoralist (LN) terminology. NE.Cauc *pal and Tibet. *pal/*pul look noteworthy.

That leaves us with wagon, wheel, and axle. Spinning wheels and straight wooden shafts mounted to axes are EN technology. In fact, already the Mesolithic (Kongemose/Ertebolle) had wheel drills and axes/adzes for boat building. As to the wagon/cart, archeological evidence so far places its origin with Funnelbeakers. There are older examples of children toys on wheels from CT, possibly also Kiziltepe in SE Anatolia, but note that Amerindians (Olmecs) also had wheeled toys without ever developing the cart/wagon. Thus, the PIE terminology related to wheel and wagon may have originated anywhere between Anatolia and the SW Baltics.
Anyway, FB was involved in the spread of vehicles, either as inventor
or as early adaptor. So, let’s look at FB yDNA from around 3,500 BC to see if any putative PE marker shows up there. We don’t have much in this respect:
– R1 (xR1b1a2, R1a1a) from Quedlinburg (I0559, 3645-3537 BC);
– G2a2a from Salzmünde (I0551, 3400-3025 BC)
– I2a1b1a from Esperstedt (I0172, 3360-3086 BC)

EEF, Mesol. HG, and R1 of unknown origin, all possibly involved in the spread of PIE. Make your choice. J2, however, is missing, as is sizeable CHG admix in the a/m samples (which, however, do neither cover Polish nor Nordic FB).
May 1, 2016 at 4:26 AM

wagg said…
FrankN: (about ekwos) „Such technical terms can spread more or less uniformly at any point in time, as, e.g., demonstrated by the Arabic alcohol.”

Ridiculous. The root ekw- comes from a PIE root: all the IE words are derived as expected in every languages by the rules of change determined by the experts.
Anyway, how could anyone believe that the same root is found from the eastern part of the IE world – i.e. ancient north-western China (Tokharian B yakwe) and ancient India (Sanskrit asva) – to the western part (old Irish ech) as a post-PIE wanderwoort (sometimes through large non-IE territories)….
May 1, 2016 at 8:43 AM

capra internetensis said…

@Frank
Words that spread after the break-up of a proto-language can in principle be distinguished from words present in the proto-language (whether borrowed into it or not) because they will not have undergone all the characteristic sound changes of each branch from the earliest stage. There is the possibility of etymological nativization, or the word may lack suitable phonemes to track its early history. But we can at least see that ‚ek’wos was present before satemization of velars, is present in almost all branches, and is usually regular, so to suggest that it spread as a loanword after the break-up of PIE seems quite far-fetched. Of course the horse need not have been domestic at the proto-language stage.

What is the etymological relationship between wheel and wool? Generally they do not seem very similar; Greek lenos and kuklos, Sanskrit ūrṇa and cakra show velar stops in „wheel” which have softened to in English and eventually been lost (in most dialects) but were never present in „wool”.
May 1, 2016 at 9:13 AM

MfA said…
PIE wool is *h₂wĺ̥h₁neh₂, it doesn’t have any connection to wheel.

Horse: Most diagnostic sound changes date to the LBA/ IA. Proto-Celtic still had *ekʷos that only after the P-/Q-celtic splits developed into current forms. Mycenaian ikkʷos underwent the OGr. “Kw”-“P” sound shift to turn into (h)ippos. Satemisation in Indic was still in full swing between the Rigvedas and later Vedes. However, aswa „horse” already occurs in the Rigvedas, so we have a terminus ante quem around 1500 BC, which would still leave a bit of time for common borrowing after the split of PIE.
Old Armenian էշ ‎(ēš, “donkey, ass”) demonstrates use of *hekwos in the general sense of „equids”. So, I wouldn’t exclude the possibility that Indic aswa was borrowed, or influenced soundwise, from IVC language(s). C.f. for „donkey” Proto-Altaic *ĕĺǯu, Proto-Semitic *ʕayr- (vs. *hek[wos]).

CI – for the initial velar stop in „wheel” terms, they are commonly derived from PIE *kwelh₁ „to turn”, not from *uel-. However, both stems are so close semantically and phonetically that we might be dealing with dialectal variants of the same root. Outside of wheel terminology, *kwelh₁ has preserved the sense „to turn” only in Toch., Arm. and Alb.; it is missing from Anat. and Celtic; in IndAr it refers to movement in general (c.f. Germ *felhana „to go, proceed”); in Italic, Germanic and Baltoslavic to round/bending body parts (neck, knee); Latin also has colere, cultivare (i.e. turning over soil, e.g. by ploughing), and colus „spinning distaff”.http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/X/P1092.html
Greek kuklos „circle, wheel” is intriguing for its irregularity. The „u” can’t be reconciled with the „e” sound in *kwekwlos. Moreover IE „Kw” is expected to shift to „P” in Aeolian Greek (c.f. pente „five”), PIE *kwekwlos „wheel”, have yielded OGrk. peklos/peplos instead of kuklos [Pokorny relates PIE *kwelh₁ to Gr. πέλω „in movement”, πόλος „axle, ploughed land”]. C.f. on these and other problems (e.g. vocalism in Tocharian and Baltic):http://armchairprehistory.com/2011/05/25/indo-european-wheel-words/

Sp, the two PIE roots for „to turn”, *uel- and *kwelh₁ may represent early dialectal variation within PIE. The former tends to have better preserved the original meaning, and forms the base for IE „wool” terms, while the latter, with several phonetic inconsistencies, is supposed to underlie „wheel” terminology.
O.Engl./High German Felge „felly” (spoked wheel rim) may indicate confluence of both roots in West Germanic, or alternatively a third phonetically similar PIE root *pelk̂ „to turn (plough)” that, is limited to Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, and possibly Greek (if πόλος „axle, ploughed land” isn’t derived from *kwelh₁). PIE *(s)ker „to turn, bend” („curve”, „circle”, „curly” etc.) adds a forth, rhotacised phonetic variant.
May 2, 2016 at 2:31 AM

wagg said…
@FrankN : about *ekwos.

Old Armenian is ONE language among many others (that have the exact same meaning) so it doesn’t prove anything. Celtic and Mycenian don’t prove anything either (there is no particular reason why the word should have undergone a specific sound change at this point on the specific consonant at this point in time)… as for ‚asva’ it’s a classic sound change and is perfectly in accordance with the shift changes expected in sanskrit, there is no reason at all to imagine a particular individual story for the word ‚asva’ or Iranic ‚aspa’, for that matter. You’re trying to fit a square-shaped object in a circle-shaped hole. It really seems as simple as it looks.

The idea that a common root *ekw- would spread throughout Eurasia (many thousands of kilometers: Ireland – China and India !!! during a time such as Bronze Age!!) AFTER the PIE split and undergoing the same changes that the PIE words gradually underwent is just ridiculously unbelievable to me (and I’m sure to most reasonable individuals).

The distance alone is enough to disappprove the concept (unrealistic, illogical and anachronistic) but beside that, the word wouldn’t have undergone the same sounds shift than the PIE words – at least in most cases. (E.g. You have latin Cord- and english (germ.) Heart – words that were separated at the PIE split and undergone a specific sound change (PIE K -> Germ. H) – but you have latin case (-us) and German käse and Dutch kaas (and English cheese) for it was a loanword from Latin in germanic (Lat. K -> Germ. K)).

Of course the same thing is true for words such as *rot-eh (=wheel/chariot : Gaulish rot-, Irish roth, Latin rot-, Lithuanian rat-, Albanian rreth, Sanskrit and Avestan rath-), or any other root that I know of (*kwekwl- (wheel), *aks- (axle), *wegheti (ride, transport?, move?), etc…): all the sound changes are just what we expect.
Same with the common stem for metal/copper? (Sanskrit ayas, Latin aes/aer-, Gothic aiz, old Norse eir, etc…).

May 2, 2016 at 5:13 AM
FrankN said…
@wagg: I feel you are getting a bit lost in time and space. The P-/Q-Celtic sound shifts in question here were regular. P-Celtic evolved sometime before 600 BC (it is already evidenced in Lepontic inscriptions). The dating of Proto-Celtic is unclear. However, according to the Italo-Celtic hypothesis, both branches emerged from the Urnfield culture, which would place the split some time after 1200 BC, when the Proto-Villanova culture as presumed bearer of Italic languages emerged. The shift from Mycenaian to Ancient Greek, which involved the „kw”->”p” change, is dated to 1100 – 800 BC. The Germanic sound shift, which included „K”->”H” (centum-hundred) is roughly dated to between 600 BC (borrowing of cannabis from Skythian, which was sound-shifted into hemp) and 300 AD („Hesse” still recorded as „Chatti” by various Roman authors), as a process that commenced in the East and gradually proceded westwards. Satemisation of Sanskrit was, as shown by M. Witzel, still ongoing between the Rigvedas and later Vedes, so we are probably talking something like 1500 – 1000 BC here.

When PIE started to disintegrate is controversial: The Anatolian hypothesis obviously promotes an earlier dating than the Steppe hypothesis. Gimbutas’ approach (which is problematic as aDNA denies Steppe incursion into Transcarpathia) places it at around 4000 BC (destruction of Varna Culture). That would leave a window of some 2200 years until the first written evidence of IE (Hittite), and of some 2000 years in which already disintegrated early IE languages would still be geographically confined to North Central Europe (Corded Ware), the Western Steppe (Sintashta-Andronovo eastward expansion only by 2100 BC), and possibly the Eastern Balkans and Anatolia. No Ireland, no Tocharians, no Indoaryans yet, an area considerably smaller than is now covered by Slavic languages!
May 2, 2016 at 9:52 AM

Matt said…
Hi Kristiina, I’m not really saying what you think I am.

When I mentioned the Finns, its that the Finns in the 1000 genomes don’t show in their genomes the same sign of increase in population size around the Neolithic as everyone else.

That’s the „signature of the Neolithic” in population size increase I’m talking about.

Instead they seem to stay a genetically small population, with more similar genetic population size to paleolithic Eurasians. That really all I’m referring to. I’m not talking about the sources of their ancestry.

(This is all in connection with my not really buying into the idea that the Y-dna haplogroups G and J2 have really been expanding at a continuous growth rate since around 30,000 and 25,000 YBP respectively, as depicted by the graph I linked upthread).

However, looking at it in more detail, there are big differences between Iberian, British, CEU, Tuscan as well, so I might have overstated the differences in Finnish population size history from other Europeans.
May 1, 2016 at 8:00 AM

I see that the most spectular growth has taken place in Bengali. Chinese are on the second place. The population growth in Finland has been very moderate and not very high in England and Scotland either. Very understandable. In Finland a population expansion started only at the end of the 18th century and did not result to a really high density.
May 1, 2016 at 12:11 PM

The recent Qiaomei Fu et al. paper on the population genomics of Ice Age Europe was a fascinating read, but its sampling strategy left a big blind spot: Eastern Europe 24-34 kyr BP. Check out what happens to the maternal lineages of Eastern European mammoths at this time.

Basically, they’re replaced by lineages native to North America. During the 14-24 kyr BP period, the rest of the European mammoth population is also affected.

Of course, this is also precisely the period when the so called Villabruna hunter-gatherer cluster appears in Central Europe, probably as a result of mixture between the remnants of post-Ice Age Europeans and a population relatively closely related to Caucasus and Siberian hunter-gatherers (see post and discussion here). Perhaps mammoth hunters?

No wonder then, that this is also the time when we see the first appearance of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1 in Europe; more precisely R1b1, in the ~14 kyr cal BP genome from Villabruna, northeast Italy, that defines the Villabruna cluster. After all, R is the sister clade of Q, the dominant Y-chromosome haplogroup in many parts of North Asia and the Americas.

Sunday, May 22, 2016
Parallel migrations in brown bears and humans within Eurasia

If a major part of the Native American gene pool derives from the Altai-Sayan refugium, then it’s likely to be the Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) part, rather than the East Asian part. So I’d say that for now the Altai-Sayan region looks like a pretty good option for the homeland of the ANE people (aka Mal’ta cluster).

Climatic changes during the Late Pleistocene had major impacts on the populations of many plant and animal species. During this period, humans and large mammals, e.g. brown bear and moose, were subject to analogous phylogeographic pressures and were linked by important ecological processes. However, evidence of human dispersal in northern Eurasia during the Late Pleistocene is scarce. Analysis of large mammals therefore has the potential to shed light on the population processes of humans during this period. We address several unresolved issues regarding the Late Pleistocene demography of brown bears: (a) the putative locations of refugia; (b) the direction of migrations across Eurasia and into North America; and (c) parallels with other mammals, including humans. We present results based on more than 200 complete mitochondrial genome sequences from Eurasian and North-American brown bears. Bayesian phylogenetic analysis revealed that most individuals belong to a very large Holarctic clade. The MRCA of this clade lived ca 40 thousand years ago, most likely in the Altai-Sayan area, a known Late Pleistocene refugium in Asia. We propose several migration scenarios for bears and suggest that brown bears and humans underwent a series of parallel migrations in Eurasia and to North America during the Late Pleistocene. Moreover, both species exhibited a demographic standstill in Beringia before colonizing North America. Synchrony in the timing of past migrations and standstill implies that the ecology of large mammals includes key limiting factors that can enhance our understanding of ancient human movements and on large carnivore conservation.

Saarma et al., Parallel migrations in brown bears and humans within Eurasia and into North America during the Late Pleistocene, ConGenomics 2016 abstract.

From a new paper at PLoS ONE on the diet and mobility of Corded Ware (CW) people in Central Europe (emphasis is mine):

Regarding the formation of the CW, some archaeologists point out the contribution of different regions to the material set of the „CW-network”, while others note similarities with the steppe, in particular with the Yamnaya culture, as a possible area of origin. This is based on similarities in burial rituals. Some authors have suggested that this culture practiced a form of mobile pastoralism, which spread towards the west through migration and/or cultural influence, and gave rise to the CW. In the process, Indo-European language would also have spread over Europe [3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. Recently, these hypotheses have gained support from aDNA studies of Yamnaya and CW burials. Allentoft et al [8] and Haak et al. [9] show that a genetic transformation took place in areas where previous Neolithic DNA was heavily reduced and complemented by Yamnaya DNA. This new genetic presence was lasting and provided much of the genetic material for contemporary European populations. There is increasing evidence for some kind of population reduction or crisis toward the end of the middle Neolithic facilitating this introduction of new genes (e.g. [10]) and recent research has documented the presence of plague among Yamnaya and Corded Ware individuals [11], which may have spread among Neolithic populations prior to the migrations.

…

The number and proportion of females with distinctive strontium isotope ratios is notable and suggests that women were more mobile than males in CW society. Such evidence fits well with recent genetic information documenting more varied haplogroups among CW females [14]. Müller et al. [2] suggest female exogamy as a means of maintaining lineage identify in the face of rapid, long-distance mobility. Haak et al. [25] also reported genetic and Sr isotope ratio differences between males and females at Eulau, Germany, suggesting female exogamy. The fact that such a difference is identifiable at all also suggests that males were largely stationary, at least in the sense that they were mostly born, raised and buried in the same locality. We suggest that this reflects a stable exogamic system where women moved to their husband’s settlements, existing at Bergrheinfeld for several generations. As no distinctions in burial treatment were associated with incoming women, either the exogamic exchange involved only CW groups, or incoming women were completely integrated into CW society.

Enjoy, but please, those of you still sore about the passing of the Out of India, Out of Armenia, Out of Your Hat, or indeed, Out of Your Ass Indo-European hypotheses, try not to fill up the comments with the usual inane drivel. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Davidski said…
The Andronovo/Srubnaya related edge to high caste northern Indians is easy to reproduce in a variety of topologies. It has to be real, and must be closely linked to the initial spread of Z93 in South Asia.
May 28, 2016 at 1:37 AM

DMXX said…
It actually looks quite good. From my limited reading, the earlier Sanskrit texts don’t espouse the same degree of social rigidity that has historically existed in India. It wasn’t until much later on (after Christ) that the caste system had become crystallised. One fairly straightforward read:

The „crystallisation” of the caste system began around the Gupta period, which was founded around the 3rd century AD (Om Prakash’s „Cultural History of India”, V Bhushan & DR Sachdeva’s „Fundamentals of Sociology”, KK Reddy’s „General Studies History”).

Some recent data (Basu et al. 2016) also indicates the caste system as we currently know it was instituted around the time of the Gupta period (3rd century AD):

Using the above as a framework, that would mean gene-flow through the Indo-Scythian and Kushan periods may have occurred, as they preceded the Gupta period (Indo-Parthians too potentially, though their territory in modern India extended into Punjab only). Only the Hephthalites can be disregarded as a potential significant source of further steppe input among modern upper caste northern Indians, as they followed the Gupta’s.

In conclusion, based on the above, the chances that modern upper caste populations received additional input from steppe groups following the early Indo-Aryan migrations is reasonable and sufficient enough to consider as an alternative to the commonly-repeated trope of „upper castes are the purest descendants of the first Indo-Aryans”.

As an aside, seems to be a popular one among Hindus belonging to the higher castes, so I wouldn’t consider their subcultural traditions as evidence for that actually being the case for fairly obvious reasons (caste self-aggrandisement), if that has any contribution to your perspective here.

A team of archaeologists led by Dr Mykhailo Videiko of the Kyiv Institute of Archaeology has discovered the remains of a 6,000-year-old temple at a Trypillian culture village near modern-day Nebelivka, Ukraine.

Trypillian culture derives its name from the village of Trypillia in Kyiv region, Ukraine, where artifacts of this ancient civilization were first discovered in 1896.

Archeological excavations show that Trypillian people lived from about 5400 to 2700 BC on a vast area extending from the Carpathian piedmont, east to the Dnipro River, and south to the shores of the Black sea.

The culture is characterized by advanced agriculture, developed metallurgy, pottery-making, sophisticated architecture and social organization, including the first proto-cities on European soil.

Large pot and small bowls found inside the southern room of the temple. Image credit: Nataliia Burdo / Mykhailo Videiko.

Trypillian society was matriarchal, with women heading the household, doing agricultural work, and manufacturing pottery, textiles and clothing. Hunting, keeping domestic animals and making tools were the responsibilities of the men.

The most notable aspect of the Trypillian culture was the periodic destruction of settlements, with each single-habitation site having a roughly 60 to 80 year lifetime.

Some of the settlements were reconstructed several times on top of earlier habitational levels, preserving the shape and the orientation of the older buildings.

The purpose of burning these settlements is a subject of debate among scientists.

The remains of one of the largest burnt out Trypillian buildings ever found have been uncovered during recent excavations at the Trypillian ‘mega-site’ of Nebelivka in Kirovograd region, Ukraine, and interpreted as a massive temple, dating from 4000 BC.

“The temple was a two-story building made of wood and clay surrounded by a galleried courtyard, five rooms were on the first floor and raised family altars made of clay were on the ground floor,” said Dr Videiko, who is a co-author of the paper published in the Journal of Neolithic Archaeology.

“We have all motives and enough evidences to determine it as a central temple of the whole village community.”

“Its construction required labor commensurate with the construction of several dozen ordinary houses. Its plan and some features of this structure find analogies in temples from the 5th – 4th millennia BC known from excavations in Anatolia and Mesopotamia.”

The temple was approximately 60 meters long and 21 meters wide, and was oriented nearly east-west.

Inside the temple, Dr Videiko and his colleagues found the remains of eight clay platforms, which may have been used as altars, and two bins with stones inside.

“Cross-like altars with painted surface and incised decoration are well known from excavations at Volodymyrivka, Maydanetske and other Trypillian sites in the region, also from the pottery models of dwellings,” the archaeologists said.

“During explorations, we discovered some of the details of the interior – thresholds, clay platforms, bins, podium, storage vessels, decoration of floor and walls.”

“The main constructive material was clay with different kinds of admixtures. Clay platforms and podium were created using clay mixed with loamy soil.”

“It is visible that platforms, thresholds, floors and clay bins were repaired during the period when the structure existed.”

“We have no direct evidence about the construction of the roof. It is possible to suppose that it looked as on pottery models of houses from the sites of Nebelivka group: arched, probably from rush mates, with conventionalized bull horns over pediment.”

Clay tokens, fragments of humanlike figurines, pottery, golden and bone pendants were also found at the temple.

Elliott Brian Gold ermesy • a year ago
The Shumer were ofc the first to have a society. How they acquired so much technology so early -read, the first few years of their civilization, is an ongoing debate.

Apparently these peoples were part of that process.

Martin Silenus Elliott Brian Gold • a year ago
The Sumerians were the first theologically-acceptable civilization to have a society. European archaeologists helped build the narrative since the 17th century. There are other indications of earlier civilizations, but they are biblically inconvenient.

Guest Martin Silenus • a year ago
False, it is the Jewish People who have created the false narratives, they have also rewrote virtually all of our planets history(they are not even REAL Jews–that’s a long story but just a FYI)….Steven Spielberg made a mistake at a fund raiser for a „charity” that works to „maintain” history….he stated „we know history can be rewritten so we must remain vigilant” he froze up when he realized he over spoke…Obama was literally standing right next to him at the time…….It is sad people can be so petty to try and frame themselves as „special”, etc…very sad………

An international team of scientists from Lebanon, Tunisia, France and New Zealand has sequenced the complete mitochondrial genome of the ‘Young Man of Byrsa, or ‘Ariche,’ a Phoenician who lived in Carthage in the 6th century BC.

Ariche, the Carthaginian man. Image credit: M. Rais.

“The Phoenicians are recognized as one of the great early civilizations of the Mediterranean,” said study co-leader Prof. Lisa Matisoo-Smith from the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, and her colleagues.

“First recorded as the descendants of the Canaanites, they inhabited the shores of the eastern Mediterranean and dominated the maritime trade routes of both the eastern and, later, the western Mediterranean during the second and first millennium BC.”

“The creators of the first alphabet, the Phoenicians documented their own records on papyrus and parchment which, unfortunately, disintegrate over time leaving behind limited historical information.”

“The main Phoenician coastal cities, Tyre, Sidon, Byblos and Arwad, located in what is now Lebanon and southern Syria, have been continuously occupied, so rarely subjected to major archaeological excavations. As a result, we actually know little about the Phoenicians other than what was written about them by the Greeks and Egyptians.”

The most well known Phoenician city was Carthage in Tunisia, founded by Queen Elissa and her followers who arrived from the Phoenician city of Tyre around 813 BC.

“Carthage grew from a small Phoenician trading port to one of the most powerful cities in the Mediterranean. Phoenician domination was to be eventually eroded and ultimately replaced by the Greek and later the Roman might in the Mediterranean,” the scientists explained.

“Carthage was destroyed by the Romans in the Third Punic War (149–146 BC).”

Byrsa Hill was the highest point in Carthage and was the site of a Phoenician acropolis. Today it is the location of the National Museum of Carthage.

“In 1994, gardeners planting a tree at the front of the Museum discovered a Punic burial crypt,” the researchers said.

“Inside this crypt were the remains of a young man along with a range of burial goods, all dating to the late 6th century BC.”

“An osteological analysis of the young man determined that he was approximately 1.7 m tall and aged between 19 and 24 years, and a craniometric analysis indicated likely Mediterranean/European ancestry as opposed to African or Asian.”

The team’s analysis, published in the journal PLoS ONE, shows that Ariche belonged to a rare European haplogroup that likely links his maternal ancestry to locations somewhere on the North Mediterranean coast, most probably on the Iberian Peninsula.

“The findings provide the earliest evidence of the European mitochondrial haplogroup U5b2c1 in North Africa and date its arrival to at least the late 6th century BC,” Prof. Matisoo-Smith said.

U5b2c1 is considered to be one of the most ancient haplogroups in Europe and is associated with hunter-gatherer populations there.

It is remarkably rare in modern populations today, with only a few modern sequences published or available in public databases. All of the reported U5b2c1 carriers are of presumably European ancestry, from Spain, Portugal, England, Ireland, Scotland, the United States and Germany.

“Interestingly, our analysis showed that Ariche’s mitochondrial genetic make-up most closely matches that of the sequence of a particular modern day individual from Portugal,” Prof. Matisoo-Smith said.

The team analyzed the mitochondrial DNA of 47 modern Lebanese people and found none were of the U5b2c1 lineage.

“Previous research has found that U5b2c1 was present in two ancient hunter-gatherers recovered from an archaeological site in north-western Spain,” Prof. Matisoo-Smith said.

“While a wave of farming peoples from the Near East replaced these hunter-gatherers, some of their lineages may have persisted longer in the far south of the Iberian Peninsula and on off-shore islands and were then transported to the melting pot of Carthage in North Africa via Phoenician and Punic trade networks.”

Nirjhar007 said…
Y-HGs J, G, L, H, and R1b are all possible for Maikop. You forget R1a-M417. If its there, it will solve the CWC R1a situation , although I am sure you think its already solved..
August 16, 2016 at 5:21 AM

Davidski said…
You forget R1a-M417. If its there, it will solve the CWC R1a situation. The term clutching at straws to describe this would be a massive understatement. Maikop shows no relationship to CWC archaeologically or genetically, and no really ancient R1a has been located in or anywhere near the Caucasus.
August 16, 2016 at 5:36 AM

You forget R1a-M417. If its there, it will solve the CWC R1a situation , although I am sure you think its already solved..

I guess Maikop guys will be mostly carriers of R1a-M417 subclades (something like R1a-Z645) while majority of CWC R1a guys will be from R1a-YP1272 subclades. For a while the best model for R1a folks expansion is a 3-wave migration from the Iranian Plateau:

Davidski said…
It’s obviously total bullshit, since ancient R1a has already been recovered from Eastern European foragers and an early pastoralist (Khvalynsk man) with an extremely high level of Eastern European forager admixture. Corded Ware also have very high levels of Eastern European forager admixture.

Obviously, Eastern European foragers didn’t migrate to Eastern Europe during the Bronze Age, Maikop has nothing to do with Corded Ware or modern European R1a, and Maikop remains most likely won’t have any R1a. So Azarov’s pet theory is bullshit.
August 16, 2016 at 9:17 PM

Azarov Dmitry said…
@Davidski
It’s obviously total bullshit, since ancient R1a has already been recovered from Eastern European foragers and an early pastoralist (Khvalynsk man) with an extremely high level of Eastern European forager admixture.

For a while results of aDNA from Eastern Europe (Neolithic and Early Bronze Age) did not show any significant variance of R1a subclades. This fact kinda hints us that Eastern Europe could not be a primary source of R1a folks. The same is fair and for R1b guys. I believe these sister clades came from the same region (Iranian Plateau) and entered Europe in several migration waves.

Migration routs of R1b folks from the Iranian Plateau
August 17, 2016 at 10:56 AM

Davidski said…
There’s no evidence of any migrations from Iran to Eastern Europe. Your maps are based on pure speculation and in fact contradict the available evidence.
August 17, 2016 at 3:12 PM

Sherri said…
I think R1a is coming from a Forest steppe population but Azarov makes some excellent points. Calm down boys! No need for expletives.
August 19, 2016 at 12:09 PM

Davidski said…
Azarov is a stupid troll. Totally out of touch with reality. And we already know where R1a is from.

Davidski said…
Khvalynsk/Sredny Stog (R1b-Z2103 and R1a-YP1272 folks) is just a first wave of migrants form the Iranian Plateau. This is bullshit. There was no migration from Iran to Eastern Europe. You don’t understand this because you don’t understand any of the ancient data we have. It’s like I’m having a debate with a child.
August 20, 2016 at 8:49 AM

Ancient North Eurasian is an ancestral component now somewhat common in population genetics… It was originally discovered through the genome of a Siberian boy who died over 20,000 years ago referred to as either Mal’ta boy or MA-1 and was backed up as being a real entity in pre-historic Eurasia through other ancient genomes like that of Afontova Gora-2. [1]

It’s discovery really shook up a lot of things like our understanding of the origins of Europeans, Native Americans and even groups such as Central Asians, South Asians and various West Asians who seem to carry either Ancient North Eurasian or Ancient North Eurasian-related ancestry.

Lazaridis et al. 2013-2014 seemed to suggest that Europeans were basally a three-way mixture between Ancient North Eurasians / MA-1 related peoples, what they dubbed Western European Hunter-Gatherers based on the ancient genomes of various Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers from Europe like Loschbour and then finally Early European Farmers who began entering Europe around the Neolithic from West Asia.

Since then that model’s become rather obsolete and has been replaced by one where all of the supposed Ancient North Eurasian ancestry in Europe is owed to the spread of the Indo-European languages by pastoralist peoples from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe.

These pastoralists were carrying with them a foray of different ancestries from what looks to be Caucasian–like ancestry rich in what looks to be Ancient North Eurasian-related & West Asian ancestry and what is for now referred to by chaps like Wolfgang Haak of Haak et al. 2015 as „Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers (EHGs)”. [2]

EHGs almost fit as a mixture between Ancient North Eurasians & Western European Hunter-Gatherers but instead don’t entirely look to be the result of such a mixture. Though as David Wesolowski who runs the Eurogenes genome blog and ancestry project once remarked in the quote below- :

„It depends how you define EHG, ANE and WHG, and the concept of pure components.They can all be distinct pops, or EHG can be a mix of ANE and WHG, or even WHG can be a mix of EHG and something as yet unsampled.„

-it’s honestly rather iffy and tricky modeling these pre-historic groups with wildly different time stamps on them (Mesolithic for WHGs and EHGs and Paleolithic for ANEs) as mixtures of one another.

But David seems to assume groups like EHGs and WHGs are likely a mixture between groups that preceded them perhaps like Ancient North Eurasians and some other groups as yet unsampled. The cold hard truth of the matter is that we require more samples of pre-historic Hunter-Gatherer groups across West Eurasia to really understand what EHG and WHG are and how exactly they’re connected to ANE because the current models seem inadequate.

It could just be that Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers are somehow extra related to Ancient North Eurasians or somehow partially descended from them and something Western European Hunter-Gatherer related. We’d need more ancient genomes across time and space in Europe and other parts of Eurasia to truly grasp this with any kind of conclusive detail.

Early Neolithic = Early European Farmer

Although one thing is resolved for now… A group of „pure” Ancient North Eurasians didn’t come and contribute Ancient North Eurasian ancestry to the ancestors of modern Europeans; this Ancient North Eurasian-related ancestry is ultimately owed to expansions from the Steppe. Whether EHGs are „WHG + ANE” or related to MA-1 in some other way or not.

Though it is worth-noting that the non-EHG and „Caucasian-like” ancestry in Pontic Caspian Steppe pastoralists like the Yamnaya did also carry Ancient North Eurasian-related ancestry and in this case; not seemingly owed to Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer ancestry.

The redder a place or its „outline” is; the richer in ANE-related ancestry it is

In the end though what looks to be Ancient North Eurasian ancestry or Ancient North Eurasian-related like EHG ancestry is found all over Eurasia from Siberia to South Asia or Western Europe to Central Asia. In a modern context it tends to peak in Siberian groups like Kets [3] or various modern South Asians and in West Eurasia peaks in the Caucasus region.

It also really helped redefine our understanding of the origins of Native Americans who like many populations on this planet are now understood not to be some „pure” separate branch of the Homo Sapien Sapien family tree but a mixture of sorts like Europeans. In their case the mixture seems to be between Ancient North Eurasians and East Asian-related ancestry. [4]

If I had to quickly dive into where the component stands in Eurasia; it’s essentially closest to Eastern & Western European Hunter-Gatherer and seems to share as geneticists suggest; a sort of earlier root with these components like it does with Western European Hunter-Gatherer in that Lazaridis et al. 2013 diagram I shared.

Though as I said; we really need more samples from across Eurasia (West Eurasia, Siberia, Central Asia, South Asia etc.) from various time periods to really understand the true nature of groups like Ancient North Eurasians, Western European Hunter-Gatherers and Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers because as it stands; things stand on somewhat unsure and confused ground.

For all we know; what looks to be non-Steppe derived „ANE” ancestry in groups like South Asians, Central Asians and West Asians may not be owed to some sort of „pure” Ancient North Eurasian group like we once thought was the case for Europeans…

It could instead mean that these groups owe their Ancient North Eurasian-related ancestry to Eurasian Hunter-Gatherer groups somehow related to Ancient North Eurasians or who carry ANE ancestry themselves in some way or other; more ancient DNA analysis is needed… I say this a lot and before this blog post is over will say it again because it can’t be emphasized enough.

This uncertainty I highlighted above is essentially why I insist on sometimes writing „Ancient North Eurasian-related ancestry” rather than undoubtedly assuming some of these non-European populations have direct ANE ancestry.

Eurasia

Nevertheless, for the time being what we dub „Ancient North Eurasian” is highly divergent from Western European Hunter-Gatherers despite the seemingly closer relations between ANEs and European Hunter-Gatherers when compared to Eastern Non-African groups, to a point where Native Americans will often seem more similar or closer to Mal’ta boy than Europeans are like in analyses such as IBS:

This being the case despite the fact that the East Asian-related ancestry that makes up the rest of Native Americans’ ancestry is less related to Ancient North Eurasians like Mal’ta boy / MA-1 than the European Hunter-Gatherer ancestry in Europeans is, though Europeans might be shifted away a bit by the highly divergent Basal Eurasian component in their West Asian / Near Eastern-related ancestry.

Nevertheless, ANE is a pretty distinct ancestral cluster of its own with what seems to be a very large spread across Eurasia of either ANE or ANE-related ancestry showing up in small amounts even in some East Asian populations as well as somewhat in Egyptians, a Northeast African population.

1. What shows up as Ancient North Eurasian in East African groups like the Gumuz or Anuaks in the K=8 admixture analysis isn’t actually ANE ancestry. From what David once told me; it’s essentially some sort of archaic Eurasian element these groups demonstrate that just won’t fit into the runs other clusters/components.

These East African cluster rich groups in my experience do tend to show an odd as of yet unexplained very small Eurasian / Out-of-Africa (related to Non-African populations) element in various runs especially at K=2; just don’t make much of it for the time being.

2. I’ve put a little time into formally explaining components like Ancient North Eurasian or the Near Eastern / West Asian ancestry (Early Neolithic Farmer) in Early European Farmers because many I’ve encountered who’ve just gotten recently interested in population genetics sometimes might need a more straightforward explanation for what these components are / what we for now understand of them without having more ancient samples to paint a better picture so here are your explanations.

3. The world map that shows various ANE levels across the globe via the colors green and red is owed to a chap David/the author Eurogenes refers to as Sergey as mentioned here. And the MA-1 IBS spreadsheet if you’re wondering is owed to David.

4. This is a direct note quoted from David/ the author Eurogenes I’m sharing because it’s rather interesting: [-]

ASI =Ancestral South Indian, you can learn a little about it here. It’s essentially a „South Indian” centered Andamanese & perhaps also Australo–Melanesian related component though we’ll need ancient DNA from South Asia to really grasp it as for now it’s not even „purely” made up of such ancestry and as David notes; is „mixed” in that it carries ancestry like Ancient North Eurasian-related ancestry. That’s because all the models of it we have for now are based on modern South Asians who are all mostly a mixture between West Asian-related, ANE-related, Pontic Caspian Steppe-derived & „ASI” ancestry. The only way to get a good and unmixed edition of it would be sufficient ancient DNA from South Asia where it can be found in such a state.